Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, if that were true, than our facts wouldn't have anything to do
with human opinion. We look at the universe as we see it, and put
our spin on it, that is not data talking, but mankind. Wishful
thinking is anyone who attempts to think evolution is much more
than ID when it comes to people's opinion, it isn't.
Kelly

What does "facts" have to do with "opinion"?
Some people were of the opinion that the Wright Brothers would never get off the ground, yet they did, whereby opinions changed.
Some people were of the opinion that the paddlewheel ship could outpull a propellor driven ship until they tied two ships together and the propellor driven ship easily dragged the other one backwards.
Opinions change, being just er opinions.

Similarily, some people were of the opinion that the Earth was at most 10,000 years old based on some old book.
We know better today, having discovered facts.

Originally posted by KneverKnight

some people were of the opinion that the Earth was at most 10,000 years old based on some old book.
Slight correction, if I may. The 'some people' to which you allude, were more influenced by Ussher, than that "old book." The "old book" never had the age wrong, as it never gave the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]some people were of the opinion that the Earth was at most 10,000 years old based on some old book.
Slight correction, if I may. The 'some people' to which you allude, were more influenced by Ussher, than that "old book." The "old book" never had the age wrong, as it never gave the same.[/b]

Yup. Interpretation is tricky. The Bible doesn't actually say any dates.
Merry Christmas.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
What does "facts" have to do with "opinion"?
Some people were of the opinion that the Wright Brothers would never get off the ground, yet they did, whereby opinions changed.
Some people were of the opinion that the paddlewheel ship could outpull a propellor driven ship until they tied two ships together and the propellor driven ship easily dragged ...[text shortened]... at most 10,000 years old based on some old book.
We know better today, having discovered facts.

A fact may be colored by opinion, but facts remain what they are
in spite of opinion. What people believe to be true or false will
simply be what they believe. What people put their faith in to
color their world, will simply be what they put their faith in to, to
color their world. By color their world, I mean how they think it
is, how they dress it up in their mind, be it very old, or young
and so on.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine, show me your data points for how you came up with the
100,000 to 1 statement.
Kelly

That was an example. The point is that scientists have to use statistics to prove their points. If there is less than a 5% chance that a result arose by random then it is not significant. That is the absolute minimum confidence - but we always hope for higher. I tend to go for a less than 1% chance that the result was obtained by random variation.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That was an example. The point is that scientists have to use statistics to prove their points. If there is less than a 5% chance that a result arose by random then it is not significant. That is the absolute minimum confidence - but we always hope for higher. I tend to go for a less than 1% chance that the result was obtained by random variation.

So, in essence, scientists, like the rest of us, are gamblers.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, in essence, scientists, like the rest of us, are gamblers.

No-one can ever be 100% sure about anything - that is the nature of statistical method. Think about it - you can't even prove that you exist!

Scientists use statistical testing to work out the probability that something differs from a hypothetical 'random' sample. As I say, we use statistics, if you want to put it that way, yes, scientists are gamblers, but they won't take the bet if the chance of them losing is greater than 5% (normally 0.01% in medical science).

You speak as if you disprove of this, however, as I've pointed out to Kelly on numerous occassion, science works, and it's the bedrock of our society.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]No-one can ever be 100% sure about anything - that is the nature of statistical method. Think about it - you can't even prove that you exist!

Scientists use statistical testing to work out the probability that something differs from a hypothetical 'random' sample. As I say, we use statistics, if you want to put it that way, yes, scientists are g ...[text shortened]... u speak as if you disprove of this, however, as I've pointed out to Kelly on numerous occassion, b]

science works, and it's the bedrock of our society.


Actually, you are wrong. Faith is the bedrock of Western society. Science is the mistress, and an unfaithful one, at that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That was an example. The point is that scientists have to use statistics to prove their points. If there is less than a 5% chance that a result arose by random then it is not significant. That is the absolute minimum confidence - but we always hope for higher. I tend to go for a less than 1% chance that the result was obtained by random variation.

Yes, they have a clue and statistics matter a great deal, or not at all
if they are not taking everything that needs to be into account. Saying
there is less than a 5% chance is quite a statement if we were to take
that an apply it to life from non-life, which you have not done. If one
were to say they could figure out the odds, we would have to ask them
if they seen life arise from non-life without some type of intervention?
If they have even seen life arise from non-life with some type of
intervention? If they have seen neither, and no one else has either
within the world of science, where are they getting their 5% at? Which
basically is what I wanted to know from you, where did you get your
100,000 to 1 odds at? Have you seen a universe created with out a
God, or with one, to know what one would look like under both sets of
conditions? Where did you pull those numbers out of?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That was an example. The point is that scientists have to use statistics to prove their points. If there is less than a 5% chance that a result arose by random then it is not significant. That is the absolute minimum confidence - but we always hope for higher. I tend to go for a less than 1% chance that the result was obtained by random variation.

This is exactly what Dembski's work boils down to. If you have the background to sift through the obfuscation and overblown mathematical expressions, you discover that he really wants a criterion such that he can arrive at a univeral confidence level. If the probablity of x occuring randomly is less than P%, then it did not occur randomly but rather by design. Funny thing is that anyone with even one undergraduate math course in statistics (much less than a PhD from Chicago) knows that such a goal is silly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]science works, and it's the bedrock of our society.


Actually, you are wrong. Faith is the bedrock of Western society. Science is the mistress, and an unfaithful one, at that.[/b]

You really must be kidding. Freak, educate yourself man before you speak. You're an embarrassment to every YEC on this board.

Originally posted by telerion
You really must be kidding. Freak, educate yourself man before you speak. You're an embarrassment to every YEC on this board.R

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Yeah: what the hell was I thinking?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Yeah: what the hell was I thinking?

I don't know. Are you implying that the US Declaration of Independence is the "bedrock of Western society"? Really I don't see how you're trying to make a reasoned point here.

I'm off to bed. Merry Christmas.

Originally posted by telerion
I don't know. Are you implying that the US Declaration of Independence is the "bedrock of Western society"? Really I don't see how you're trying to make a reasoned point here.

I'm off to bed. Merry Christmas.

The framers were merely borrowing on ideas that had already been established, or at least, proffered. The idea being, that man's essence, being borrowed from God, commuted his (man's) free agency as sacrosanct.
That being said, that belief sprang from...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The framers were merely borrowing on ideas that had already been established, or at least, proffered. The idea being, that man's essence, being borrowed from God, commuted his (man's) free agency as sacrosanct.
That being said, that belief sprang from...

Sorry, but all these things that you are quoting are written by humans, and religious ones at that. Not exactly the most unbiased of opinions...